If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have taken the required tests to be able to sell on the xchange but can't complete the final sign up due to the gov site being down. Clients are lining up to drop their group coverage inleu of the exchange. One client will be able to save $70,000 per year by doing this so I figure the costs will be substantially more than originally thought.

"Character is doing the right thing when nobody is watching"....J.C. Watts

You may have already heard that unions are pretty unhappy with O-care. So, they sent an official letter to the administration:

Labor unions launched a multi-targeted attack this summer to force changes to ObamaCare, including one on the mandate for employers to offer insurance to full-time employees, which they say has resulted in more part-time jobs. Though that provision has been delayed, the concern is that employers are shaving the number of full-time employees in order to stay under the law's threshold for when they have to start offering coverage,

“Unless you and the Obama administration enact an equitable fix, the (Affordable Care Act) will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week,” union leaders wrote in a letter this summer to congressional Democratic leaders.(Seems like that might also apply to rest of the workforce ... not just union workers.)

The letter, co-signed by the Teamsters union, was sent to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada, and followed a resolution by a Nevada chapter of the AFL-CIO hammering on the same issues.

“The unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40-hour work week … and force union members onto more costly plans,” the resolution stated. (Seems like that might also apply to the rest of the workforce.)

Labor unions also feel slighted because low-income Americans are eligible for subsidies to help them purchase insurance through exchanges or marketplaces created by ObamaCare, when enrollment begins Oct. 1 (Does this mean that labor unions are not as compassionate toward the poorer people in our society as other groups who most often support liberal ideology about government?)

“Other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances,” the unions told Pelosi and Reid in the July letter. (Ah, so they've noticed.)

President Obama and White House officials reportedly have called union leaders to try and persuade them to tone down their complaints, pledging an accommodation. The AFL-CIO, though, on Wednesday approved a resolution anyway calling the law "highly disruptive" to union plans.

But reports have surfaced on a plan that would give union workers -- and only union workers -- subsidies to help pay for health insurance even if they're covered through their job. The purported "carve-out" could soothe the simmering discontent within Big Labor. The loyal Democratic supporters and early champions of ObamaCare say they have been slighted by the act’s final regulations, which they say is pushing some employees into part-time work and threatens their health insurance plans.

At least three congressional Republicans are trying to stop any effort to give the unions special treatment, which could cost $200 billion over 10 years.

Sen. Jon Thune, R-S.D., on Tuesday introduced the "Union Bailout Prevention Act," which would stop the granting of subsidies to offset premium costs for the multi-employer plans held by many union members.

Isn't this what a "banana republic" is all about? If you know which bureaucrats to "bribe" you can get what you want? In this case, the unions have a great deal of political power through campaign contributions. Truthfully, it's probably a bluff since I can't imagine unions suddenly giving their campaign contributions to conservative candidates ... although people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham might be able to pick up some bucks from them. But even without the money factor, they can certainly make some headlines ... which is what they have done now.

So, if you cut out all union workers (the AFL-CIO also includes quite a lot of govt employees through the SEIU), and all those "poor" Federal staffers on Capitol Hill, and Congress, and a bunch of other companies who've already gotten waivers, exactly who will be carrying the bulk of the burden of the new insureds?

Makes me wonder if a "tax" of $50 on EVERYONE (with no exceptions for income level) there would have been enough money to cover the pre-existing condition benefactors. That would work out to $50 X about 100,000,000. = $5,000,000,000. Couldn't that buy a lot of catastrophic coverage for those people if managed in a way that the govt bureaucrats couldn't get their grubby mitts on it?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Essentially, the employers are getting out of the health insurance business and giving their employees the money instead, which the employees can then use to purchase their own choice of plan best suited to their individual need.

I will say that this may be a positive thing to come out of the ACA ... with the govt requiring a "minimum" plan, and then taxing better plans than that (which didn't actually make a whole lot of sense to me), it made it less viable for employers to use their health insurance plans as a "perk" ... except for their higher level employees for whom they might be willing to absorb the cost of the tax for a "premium" plan. There is more uniformity to the overall ... though one might argue what the "minimum" plan should be.

What is unclear is whether these private exchanges will offer the "portability" feature. Can someone who now works for Walgreen's continue to purchase insurance in this exchange if they go work for another employer? It would make sense if that were the case.

Of course, in the end ... if the cost of coverage through exchanges (public or private) increased, the employers would still have to adjust their compensation levels to accommodate the increase in health insurance costs. Of course, that means the employers would then raise the prices on their products to balance their increased costs. Then as health care costs increased, and health insurance costs increased, the price of everything else would also increase.

Seems like the real key factor is to find ways to control health care costs ... which is at the root of the cost of health care insurance.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Siemens was doing this when I went to work for them eighteen years ago. They gave us each a set number of dollars based on some formula as a function of salary, years of service, job classification, etc. Then they provided us with a menu of benefits to choose from, health insurance, eye care, dental care, life insurance, disability insurance, nursing home coverage, etc. You name it, they offered it. You would choose which coverages you wanted, HMO or PPO, whether you wanted eye care or not, life insurance or not, health savings account or not, what benefit levels you wanted, etc. Then you would total up the cost. If what they gave you covered it all, you paid nothing. If the benefits you chose exceeded your allowance, they would take deductions from your check to cover the difference. You could not choose to forgo coverage and take cash. It was a use it or lose it proposition.

It was an extremely flexible system, and every employees benefits were customized the way they wanted them. Everybody was fairly happy with the approach. Siemens in North America was actually self insured, and the hired out the administration to a company named Hewitt & Associates if I remember correctly. They had a pretty large pool as at the time there were between 60,000 and 70,000 employees just in the USA.

I scanned the report at the following link. Very informative if you are unfamiliar with how they work...

Siemens was doing this when I went to work for them eighteen years ago. They gave us each a set number of dollars based on some formula as a function of salary, years of service, job classification, etc. Then they provided us with a menu of benefits to choose from, health insurance, eye care, dental care, life insurance, disability insurance, nursing home coverage, etc. You name it, they offered it. You would choose which coverages you wanted, HMO or PPO, whether you wanted eye care or not, life insurance or not, health savings account or not, what benefit levels you wanted, etc. Then you would total up the cost. If what they gave you covered it all, you paid nothing. If the benefits you chose exceeded your allowance, they would take deductions from your check to cover the difference. You could not choose to forgo coverage and take cash. It was a use it or lose it proposition.

It was an extremely flexible system, and every employees benefits were customized the way they wanted them. Everybody was fairly happy with the approach. Siemens in North America was actually self insured, and the hired out the administration to a company named Hewitt & Associates if I remember correctly. They had a pretty large pool as at the time there were between 60,000 and 70,000 employees just in the USA.

I scanned the report at the following link. Very informative if you are unfamiliar with how they work...

When I worked for SaraLee they were self insured. Everything was humming along and then they added to their catering to a certain population. First was losing Presidents day holiday for MLK? That sucked.
Anyway back to insurance. Suddenly our 3 tiers changed for any coverage to 4. Was employee, emp plus 1, and family to emp, emp plus spouse, family, and emp plus children.
Needless to say emp plus as many brats as you want was cheaper than emp plus spouse. When as they were self insured a question was asked about the financial rate backup for the change at employee meetings, it was a big shut up and we will see you in HR.
Never did get along with those idiots. Both DH and I worked for them and BOTH of us had access to a lot of the info.